Of course an Occult caster isn't inherently penalized compared than an Arcane one. Now, if that Occult caster lost access to ~10% of their available spell list, THEN If considered them penalized.
But if were talking about spells they never used finite resources to gain in the first place its not a penalty. Its more or less a class direction kind of like Occult casters have a different list to draw from than divine casters or primal casters.You wouldn't say those casters are penalized because one has this list of spells and the other has that list to choose from.No reason to consider spells per day gains for the class as a tradeoff for the second of those situations. Its just a class buff from the normal wizard with a more focused direction that the player can choose from a number of runelord options.
The occult list has some percentage less spells than the arcane and is just fine.
As long as there are sufficient spells to make the character that fits the theme that kind of runelord represents I wouldn't say its a veritcal penalty.I would categorize it as a horizontal limitation though, and that can be meaningful even if I wouldnt consider a horizontal limitation like this equivalent to a vertical drop in resources. It is a limit on choice. I just wouldn't call it a reduction to the limited resources of the class.
|
Of course an Occult caster isn't inherently penalized compared than an Arcane one. Now, if that Occult caster lost access to ~10% of their available spell list, THEN If considered them penalized.
But if were talking about spells they never used finite resources to gain in the first place its not a penalty. Its more or less a class direction kind of like Occult casters have a different list to draw from than divine casters or primal casters.You wouldn't say those casters are penalized because one has this list of spells and the other has that list to choose from.No reason to consider spells per day gains for the class as a tradeoff for the second of those situations. Its just a class buff from the normal wizard with a more focused direction that the player can choose from a number of runelord options.
The occult list has some percentage less spells than the arcane and is just fine.
As long as there are sufficient spells to make the character that fits the theme that kind of runelord represents I wouldn't say its a veritcal penalty.
I would categorize it as a horizontal limitation though, and that can be meaningful even if I wouldnt consider a horizontal limitation like this equivalent to a vertical drop in resources. It is a limit on choice. I just wouldn't call it a reduction to the limited resources of the class.
I agree that the limit posed is primarily a horizontal one. But by not being able to access all of the good spells, your cap in potential effectiveness is inherently lowered.
As a very simple example, if Fireball is the best possible spell for you to be able to cast in a given situation, not being able to prepare it gives you a limit on how effective you could be in that situation when compared to a character who does have access to Fireball.
Of course an Occult caster isn't inherently penalized compared than an Arcane one. Now, if that Occult caster lost access to ~10% of their available spell list, THEN If considered them penalized.
But if were talking about spells they never used finite resources to gain in the first place its not a penalty. Its more or less a class direction kind of like Occult casters have a different list to draw from than divine casters or primal casters.You wouldn't say those casters are penalized because one has this list of spells and the other has that list to choose from.No reason to consider spells per day gains for the class as a tradeoff for the second of those situations. Its just a class buff from the normal wizard with a more focused direction that the player can choose from a number of runelord options.
The occult list has some percentage less spells than the arcane and is just fine.
As long as there are sufficient spells to make the character that fits the theme that kind of runelord represents I wouldn't say its a veritcal penalty.
I would categorize it as a horizontal limitation though, and that can be meaningful even if I wouldnt consider a horizontal limitation like this equivalent to a vertical drop in resources. It is a limit on choice. I just wouldn't call it a reduction to the limited resources of the class.I agree that the limit posed is primarily a horizontal one. But by not being able to access all of the good spells, your cap in potential effectiveness is inherently lowered.
As a very simple example, if Fireball is the best possible spell for you to be able to cast in a given situation, not being able to prepare it gives you a limit on how effective you could be in that situation when compared to a character who does have access to Fireball.
I think thats just the nature of making subclasses which is basically what runelords are. Each subclass is effectively set up to take on different sets of roles that a wizard in general can potentially take on (wizards make these choices too but runelords are just making these choices at character creation instead and cant buy their way into prohibited options). Thing is they are not less effective at the roles their spell selection allows for.
If fireball is the most effective spell for a situation, that might be a role for another member to take on rather than an envy runelord. Or not depending on why fireball is right for the situation. If its just because there are many foes grouped together rank 3 fear can be a good spell too. If its the long range of 500ft then maybe use haste on your groups crossbow ranger.There is likely a different role the spells you can cast allow you to fill.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps if players were allowed to strick their fingers in mousetraps at the start of each session, that woud suffice.Bringing up something deliberate ridiculous doesn't make your point look stronger. It actually makes it look like you don't even feel you have a point so you're distracting from that with what is just one step removed (since you didn't actually attribute this ridiculous thing to me) from a straw man.
Sometimes ones want to be argumentative hides for the forest for the trees.
I'm saying that your outlook on the situation is absurd, not that you have said an absurd thing on its face.
You are making the case that downsides, or costs, should not be something which can be mitigated. You want these costs to hurt, so that any potential upside is paid for.
Its a fine idea on paper, but the nature of the medium means that there exists no real costs a player could be asked to pay that aren't in some way mitigatable if - and this is where we cross the absurdity boundry in your reasoning - we don't count "no longer does certain things" as a cost.
Encouraging changes in behaviour is the goal of things like the anthema system. To say that because the system works to meet its intended goal, it is then, not a restriction or cost to the player, is silly.
Reductions in agency which encourage alternative lines of play is the entire point!
This the "stick" (or Negative incentive) portion of Carrot & Stick behavioural economics. My general problem with this errata is that it removed most of the expected carrot (our positive incentive).
Paizo has made it clear they want Wizards to be most defined by the spells they cast. This is at odds with the "toolbox" approach they have generally positioned the class as.
We can see the (awful) changes to the school spell slot as means to get Wizards closer to that desired spot of "defined by the spells they cast" approach. Paizo have thus far opted to it all through negative incentives. Restrictions and lack of options, as opposed to Carrots.
With the initial release of the Runelord, it looked like Paizo had actually struck a good balance.
Being able to cast their sin spells more often than other spells, while also allowing them to prepare their other spells in their core slots, safe in the knowledge that could fall back into those sin spells with 10m break, was actually great.
The additional Runelord restrictions all made sense in this context and it served as a great example of the carrot and stick coming together to make Wizards that not only felt different from each other, but were actually more defined by the spells they cast.
Then they threw it away.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of other assessments, it is quite clear that they never intended for 'carrot' to exist. So they never threw anything away because 'it' never existed.The additional Runelord restrictions all made sense in this context and it served as a great example of the carrot and stick coming together to make Wizards that not only felt different from each other, but were actually more defined by the spells they cast.
Then they threw it away.
What they intended and what they actually did are often not the same thing. It would hardly be the first time Paizo intended one thing but actually wrote something different.
That's something being more active in the community used to fix, since we at least understood their intentions. These days we're left guessing for weeks/months and during that time we only have what they actually wrote to work with.
If we don't know what their intentions are, then their intentions are irrelevant. What they actually wrote is what matters. So 'it' existed in this case and was removed. People can agree or disagree on if that's a good decision or not, but the idea that it never existed because they didn't intend for it to exist doesn't matter when people can't possibly know their intentions until this far after the fact.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
they just messed up the wording of the rule a bit.
Lets be honest here. That is not really what happened.
Lets compare text.
Runelords hail from an era where even a scholar was expected to be able to defend themself with arms if necessary, leading to the practice of attaching a blade to the typical wizard's staff. You must choose a polearm or spear as your arcane bond. In place of an arcane thesis, you have a personal rune, which appears on your bonded weapon. The weapon functions as a staff with charges equal to the highest rank of spells you can cast and contains the sin spells from your sin up to that rank (including your cantrips). Your personal rune isn't a property rune and doesn't count against the weapon's limit of such runes.
If you prepare a magical staff, it merges with your bonded item until your next daily preparations, adding its charges and spell list. While merged, the weapons haft takes on aesthetic aspects of the staff.
Runelords hail from an era where even a scholar was expected to be able to defend themself with arms if necessary, leading to the practice of attaching a blade to the typical wizard’s staff. You must choose a polearm or spear as your arcane bond. In place of an arcane thesis, you have a personal rune, which appears on your bonded weapon. The weapon functions as a staff only you can prepare and contains the sin spells from your sin up to the highest rank of spell you can cast (including your cantrips). Your personal rune isn’t a property rune and doesn’t count against the weapon’s limit of such runes.
When you prepare your bonded weapon as a staff, you can physically merge one other staff in your possession into it, adding the staff’s spells to your bonded weapon until your next daily preparations. While merged, the weapons haft takes on aesthetic aspects of the staff
"with charges equal to the highest rank of spells you can cast" is a clear feature, which is then referenced later in the next paragraph to tell you how to handle those extra charges with the staff merge function.
They may not have intended it to the final, printed, version of the ability, but its a clear vision of a feature which is perfectly functional as written and makes sense.
Paizo are allowed to change their mind or walk things backs, but its not something that was created due to some muddled wording.
|
|
"with charges equal to the highest rank of spells you can cast" is a clear feature, which is then referenced later in the next paragraph to tell you how to handle those extra charges with the staff merge function.
They may not have intended it to the final, printed, version of the ability, but its a clear vision of a feature which is perfectly functional as written and makes sense.
Paizo are allowed to change their mind or walk things backs, but its not something that was created due to some muddled wording.
This has been discussed though, The text is not as clear as you think it to be. "Functions as a staff" previously didnt make it clear if you had to prepare it like you would need to with a staff. Which is why they added "The weapon functions as a staff only you can prepare".
Similarly the second paragraph doesnt make any note of this being additional charges to the previously prepared bonded item or adding the staff's charges to your (now empty,non-prepared) bonded item. Which is inline with how it worked pre-remaster. So they changed it to "When you prepare your bonded weapon, you can merge it with a staff"
You are correct that either reading works but the issue is specifically that depending on personal bias and experience different people will come to different conclusions when reading the previous text.
So we can't really draw conclusions as to if their vision was to replicate the old feat or something else, Nor as to wether they changed their mind or reevaluated it. Which lets be honest, if that was the case it would've been pushed much later. Only that people couldnt agree on what the text actually said and needed clarification.
Never let it be said that I think Paizo word their abilites well, and there is certainly room to improve it.
My contention was more around the additional charges granted to the initial staff was not an error or wording, or, if it was, they went out of their way to insert additional language for the sole purpose of making room for error.
If you forget the merging aspect for a moment and just look what was in the first paragraph, its a fairly unambiguous ability.
I agree that the reading where people thought you could get 2 full staff charges + the additional was always wrong and not supported in the text.
|
|
They may not have intended it to the final, printed, version of the ability, but its a clear vision of a feature which is perfectly functional as written and makes sense.It's all very well, but there's one small hitch: all this text never said anything that the base rule 'prepare only one staff per day' is removed. So yes, you add charges from a prepared staff. And your weapon is a staff. You prepare only one as usual though. So it always was only one set of charges. Functional and makes sense.
Because it doesn't need to.
Your functional staff is not an actual staff that gained charges from being prepared. It is a functional staff that gained charges as described in the ability.
If you chose to prepare an actual staff, you used those rules as normal, and if you merged them you used the actions as governed by the text.
Yes they needed to state that the functional staff could not be prepared separately as it was not explictly clear. But your functional staff never said it could be prepared anyhow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does runelord auto learn all spells from both curriculum and sin?
If so that already gives them more spells known than a normal wizard at the cost of not being able to cast non curriculum/sin spells against their anathema.
|
|
Does runelord auto learn all spells from both curriculum and sin?
If so that already gives them more spells known than a normal wizard at the cost of not being able to cast non curriculum/sin spells against their anathema.
No. You acquire Curriculum and Sin spells as Spells Known in the same manner as a non-Runelord wizard.
No. You acquire Curriculum and Sin spells as Spells Known in the same manner as a non-Runelord wizard.Does runelord auto learn all spells from both curriculum and sin?
If so that already gives them more spells known than a normal wizard at the cost of not being able to cast non curriculum/sin spells against their anathema.
Wizards choose 2 spells from the curriculum spells at level 1
And gain 1 curriculum spell at rank up?Thats in addition to 5 rank 1 at level 1 and 2 new spells per level up.
I knew runelord got the standard 5 at level 1 and 2 more per level up base but the wording for runelord specifically seemed like it just gave them all curriculum and sin spells. I dont remember it saying to say to choose a number of them.
I knew runelord got the standard 5 at level 1 and 2 more per level up base but the wording for runelord specifically seemed like it just gave them all curriculum and sin spells.Where?
I was hoping I could be corrected on this one. I dont have the rules available atm. That was just my impression last time i looked at it.
Yeah the means of gaining spells from your curriculum is still the same. Your staff however contains all spells from your sin so even if you don't pick any sin spells you still have all of them within your bonded staff, You don't need to have learnt the spells to cast them from a staff after all.
For example if lust picks sure strike and darkvision rank 1 and 2 as their curricilum selections with no other selections from the curricilum, Then their staff still contains.
cantrips: daze, message
1st: charm, command
2nd: charitable urge, stupefy
Oh wow. Thats basically sidesteps the need to learn sin spells to some
degree.Thank you both the explanation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the means of gaining spells from your curriculum is still the same. Your staff however contains all spells from your sin so even if you don't pick any sin spells you still have all of them within your bonded staff, You don't need to have learnt the spells to cast them from a staff after all.
For example if lust picks sure strike and darkvision rank 1 and 2 as their curricilum selections with no other selections from the curricilum, Then their staff still contains.
cantrips: daze, message
1st: charm, command
2nd: charitable urge, stupefyOh wow. Thats basically sidesteps the need to learn sin spells to some
degree.
Thank you both the explanation.
By RAW, you can completely sidestep the need to learn any of your curriculum spells.
The dedication at level 2 allows you to swap one prepared spell for a curriculum spell (including sin spells). But unlike the Spell Substitution thesis, the dedication never says you can only swap in spells in your spell book.
So you could in theory just prepare whatever you want during your daily preparation and then spend 10 minutes per spell to switch any number of them to a curriculum spell without having any of them in your spellbook.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that Arcane Evolution for the Sorcerer also foregoes a spellbook to keep all learned spells somewhere, this seems like an intended effect. Runelords just know their curriculum spells.
Let's hope that no Paizo developer sees this, thinks "no fun allowed in my Pathfinder 2E!" and immediately nerfs this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
an insertion of meaning where there is room for error.
I'll give you this, on the condition that you accept that there are already potentially hundreds of instances already in the game line that we just accept every day.
In this instance we know due to an errata, but there exists quite a bit of room for this sort of error all over the system. In which case we can't know until we know.
A perfectly valid errata may have also clarified the preparing issue without touching the additional charges, for instance. We can't take any potential ambiguity as a red flag because... well, Paizo leave a ton of ambiguity everywhere.
Yeah I do think its a good thing that it is vague like in the cases of Cleric and Champion.
But theres a distinction I feel has to be adressed when it comes to runelord anathema, Because the way it is written is much more akin to the barbarian before the remaster either eased or removed each instinct's anathema.
Because unlike Clerics and Champions whose language is clear that you typically need to repeatedly violate your anathema, barbarians just lost their abilities on the first violation rules as written. (Though without needing to Atone)I feel like runelord is most likely supposed to be similar like it used to be as premaster essentially removed the violating spells from your spell-list, Though since its not tied to any category or trait its probably all about the intent when casting the spell.
Direct harm with elements would probably mean dealing damage using spells that deal elemental damage or uses elemental traits, But using Tangle Vine that crits and immobilises a flying target which then proceeds to take fall damage probably wouldnt. Similarly if you cannot use your magic to create then you would still be able to cast wall spells that arent physical, Fire, Air, Water and Force. They probably went with broad stroaks specifically to have the GM decide any edge cases.
The hostile entry treats damage and harm as distinct ways an action can be hostile. Doesn't that suggest that harm is not always damage?
The paralyze spell would not do damage but would still be hostile because it is still causing harm.Also there are some odd things that happen if you only consider damage harm. Minions when not commanded do defend themselves and avoid obvious harm, but if its only damage then a flying minion wouldn't avoid a wall of wind cause it doesnt do damage on its own.
But we are not talking about hostile actions or only defining harm as damage, but rather the act of "directly cause harm with the elements." which is part of sloths anathema.
Because you are 100% correct that damage and harm are very distinct terms, But what is the difference between direct and indirect harm? Is paralyze directly harmful because it lets the barbarian do a whacking? If I command a dragon to use its breathweapon am I directly causing harm with the elements? Indirectly absolutely you are causing harm. But if the anathema is about causing direct harm.
Thers a few of these where one anathema is written more loose than the other, Wrath cannot "Use your magic to protect" but gluttony is not nearly as strict in that you cannot "Use your magic to protect others"..so can they protect themselves without breaking anathema.
Envy cannot cause harm with elements or void, Does that mean they can still use elemental and void spells that don't cause harm. As opposed to Lust which is forbidden to invoke the void at all, or Sloth which is only forbidden from doing direct harm with the elements.
Not trying to argue from a point on "this is what the intention is" but.. thats what it says, and with anathema traditionally being very much up to the GM to decide the scope off and with plenty of edge cases ..outside of premaster superstition barbarian ofcourse.
I would say what makes paralyze direct harm is that it is an attempt to apply adverse conditions on a creature (but i I am not certain applying a condition is exhaustive of what constitutes harm either, its just the harmful thing in the case of paralyze). It would be direct because its the spell effect resulting from a save(and here I want to be careful because a spell that does apply adverse effects without a save should not be discounted just because there was not a save.)
But to use elemental spells as an example someone earlier brought up coral scourge. Water elemental spell that forces a creature to roll a reflex save or grow barnacles on their body stiffening their joints. In narrative terms that's harmful, and in mechanical terms it forcing a save and is applying adverse effects depending on that defense in this case reflex. I would say it is direct harm from an elemental spell.
This spell is a bit more interesting to see how it fits if only damage counts as direct harm. In that framework it also becomes a bit weird for indirect harm.
Stifling Stillness
If a creature doesn't need to breath this spell does nothing to them directly.
If a creature was holding their breath this spell doesnt do anything to them. No harm of any kind still if only damage is harm.
If they are not holding their breath they would have to use an action to take strained breaths and save for damage + fatigue. This part would be harmful by the damage only framework but is it direct?
Or if damage isn't the only standard for harm then this spell is harmful because its attempting to do something that is well for lack of a better word harmful to those in the area.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that the anathema is basically saying-but-not-saying the old restricted schools of magic, I'd have preferred if the anathema pointed to trait tags or something clearer.
Oh im not saying that only damage counts as direct harm, Just that is the most common and something we can all agree constitutes direct harm.
Stiffling stillness absolutely is direct, The harmful effects in this case damage, fatigue and needing to hold ones breath is harmful. Suffocation is no joke in this system. And they are all direct results of the spell.
Tanglewine was the choice I used because immobilize is probably what we would consider a mostly harmless effect, But it also means that as a consequence the creature wouldnt be able to use a fly action, though even if they fall at the end of their turn they can still use arrest a fall. I guess using an example of blinding someone and they walk off a cliff is probably a clearer example.
Theres simply so many things that need to happen between the spell being cast and actual 'harm' being done. Another example would be if you used and air-spell to push someone. Sure making someone drop from a high altitude is a hostile action, But people are understandably going to have different views as to what constitutes direct harm.
Yeah I agree with your assessment on Stifling Stillness.
With Tanglevine the harm I see there a spell effect that goes against a save to apply a penalty, one you have to escape from to end. Saves are a creatures defenses against all kinds of harm. Lol from a narrative sense it might even leave you with rugburn where it lashed on.
And granted this game doesn't actually define harm so were all assessing it from our own understanding and the few examples they do give.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that the anathema is basically saying-but-not-saying the old restricted schools of magic, I'd have preferred if the anathema pointed to trait tags or something clearer.
The removal of schools would have gone much better, and the system itself would be much more robust and flexible, if it had been paired with a serious application of traits to spells.
Obviously the time constraints of the remaster prevented this, but a comprehensive trait system is the answer to a lot of issues in and around magic.
If nothing else, it would allow Personal Staves to have some life again.
|
|
I think most of us would say that "physical injury" is the most universally accepted definition of 'harm'.
Though this is very context sensitive, Blinding someone temporarily or binding them doesn't really consitute physical injury, but blinding someone permanently absolutely does.
What I'm hearing from this discussion, however, is that to the class already most susceptible to and punished by Table Variance, the Runelord now adds additional layers to that.
I can see how that if the you think anathema aren't really restrictions and don't play them as such, then yes, its the archetype isn't due much reward.
If they are played as actual restrictions, then the archetype is now missing a real payoff for those restructions.
We need to take into account that with the remaster the Wizard got a substantial nerf to horizonal power, and lost the crown for having the most top-level spell slots (either tying with or being replaced by the Oracle, depending on build).
I guess I had hoped that the rare archetype of the Runelord was a partial correction for these nerfs.
But I guess not.
I've spent a lot of time on these forums arguing how the wizard was underpowered, especially in comparison to the sorcerer, but this errata is still ok with me (that's actually how we played it anyway).
The Runelord mechanics in themselves help solve many of the wizard problems. I wanted arcane thesis to be given freely, that's almost the case - you get part spell substitution, part spell blending, part staff nexus (arguably MUCH BETTER staff nexus, which is pretty easy since it was one of, if not THE weakest thesis).
But this came at too great a cost. By virtue of spells being bad, anathema being too restrictive or wording being too unclear, there are very few "useful" sins (Wrath is ok if you want to blast I guess, while still inferior to sorcerer). Again, I'm talking from a mechanics perspective - RP-wise, you can play whatever you want.
So I'm all for removing the charges stacking, BUT it should come with a boost of some sins, in order to make them playable.